Origin Of Life?

God or Aliens, someone orchestrated life on this planet

Just a view from an amateur, and some things that just do not make sense about the origin of species, and where life came from.


I have heard the arguments; you have heard the arguments and “The Winner Is?” No one, nothing but theory and supposition all based on the same societal and familial influences that give us prejudice, favorite foods and vacation spots. Where did life come from?

Our church’s would have you believe that one all powerful God, reached down and created this little rock and the people and animals that populate it. Scientists argue that all life sprang from a galactic accident, and conspiracy buffs want to believe that aliens seeded the planet for whatever reason. Leaving God and the Aliens alone, how can an intelligent being believe in the accident theory?

Now according to the theory, all of the circumstances were exactly right and then lightening, or something, struck the ocean and sparked that first glowing ember of life into existence. Ok, let us just say for an instant that this is a correct assumption. Now the first life would have been a single celled creature of some kind. That would have mutated into something else and on and on up the chain, correct?

My question is this. At what point did this chain of creatures discover the need for sight? How could a series of blind creatures “discover” there was even something to see? What would be the Galactic accident that “informed” the first creature that sight was available? Once they were so informed (by accident) how did they mutate the organs necessary to achieve sight?

Granted this is only one aspect of the eternal argument, but it causes the intellect to ask these questions and the only answers I can find is “this is unknown.” I can not fathom how a bunch of blind creatures, spontaneously develop a sense they have no way of knowing is even an option. Boggles the mind.

Blood clotting is also a mystery to me. Supposing for a minute that blood evolved with the evolution of creatures, what was the process that created clotting? Platelets and clotting proteins cause blood to clot. We know that. What happened to the creatures before this evolved? Why did they not bleed to death somewhere in the millions of years the scientists claim this evolution took place? I can not understand why the creatures that existed prior to clotting just did not bleed themselves into extinction before they learned to clot.

Inquiring minds want to know.

who knows, its debatable

but origin of life idea is that out there in the interstellar space
there are long molecules of ammonia & other components of
proto-amino acids & other percursers of life,
the earth was just one of many places that attracted these
strands, and because the environment was friendly enough
the stuff mixed together in random combinations and eventually
a bio-sphere was created...etc etc
.............................................................................................

You made a point/example of eyesight...read this if you wish

Source: news.nationalgeographic.com...

'
From comparative studies of living organisms, as well as the fossil record,
it's long been clear that new functions don't just suddenly appear out of nowhere,
but rather that organisms have evolved
new structures and functions out of old ones,
by tweaking bits and pieces here and there'

~my deduction is that primitive 'sight' may have sprang up from primitive
sensors which may have 'felt' vibration...maybe sensors or even cells that
may have 'felt' sunlight & heat...

much like the skin on ones back 'feels' heat & light, while he/she is sacked or nodded out on the beach during a spring break party.

Why does it have to be Gods or Aliens? Why not nature? Why is it so hard for people to comprehend that life is natural, and its creation is not a fluke?

Our moon gives up tidal waves. Back when everything was just a primordial soup suspended in a liquid, an electrical current from lightning strikes ionized the hydrocarbons within the liquids, and the tides being pulled about from the moon caused the ionized hydrocarbons to collide and combine into eachother, continuing to do so untill the right combination caused life.

And thats where we all come from.

No Aliens or Bearded guy in the sky needed.

Just some cells, a tide, and a bit of a zap of electricity.

There are defintitely unknown variables that are speculative at best. But just as with all the senses that have been aquired over time, they were developed becuase key sensory glands were able to develope the need for them. Life continuously adapts to its environment. So lets say over a million years period, all these blind amebos are getting swallowed up by this new blind predator that has sensory abilities to sniff out it's prey, well the amebos know that they are defensless against such an attack, so over another million years they have developed light receptors that triggers only small and larger amounts of light in front of them. Shadows at best. Over years and years, thoughs shadows have been developed into actually sight. Over millions and millions of more years, we all have the five defense mechanisms that are now fundamentals for survival.

This is obviously only a guess to your question, but it's how I understand. AAC

It is still a leap for me, but those possible hypotheses are intriguing.

Yet when combining everything that must have been developed, Sight, Hearing, Touch, Smell, etc. Along with al of the bodily functions necessary just to survive, does it not beg for evidence of outside influence?

Even over Millions of years.

Originally posted by semperfortis
It is still a leap for me, but those possible hypotheses are intriguing.

Yet when combining everything that must have been developed, Sight, Hearing, Touch, Smell, etc. Along with al of the bodily functions necessary just to survive, does it not beg for evidence of outside influence?

Even over Millions of years.

No.

Its a sign of evolution, and needed sensory skills. Theres plenty of animals without the sense of sight, and with heightened hearing, or vice versa. Its all about the brains need for input sensory. Its not that complex, and not something that begs outside influence.

Think of it like this, you may see it as complex, but its really fairly simple. Back in the ancient days of mankind the weather seemed very complex, its really fairly simple. But we had no knowledge of its workings, and it seemed like it begged as evidence that a god was working. If you prayed, god would let it rain, dance, and rain would stop.

Now we simply understand that it was infact just the weather cycles, something amazingly simple.

Science has a firm grasp on things, and is always evolving. You may not think that this can occur naturally, and on its own, but it can, its just too complex and outside the paradigms of your thought at the moment. Its something that seems so complex, when in reality its not.

Theres no need for outside influence, its just a very simple natural formulation.

It is simple only in an explanation that it is simple. No it is far more complex when one looks around and there are no half man, half apes, no Dolphins with fingers, no true evidence of ongoing evolution.

So what happened? Did evolution just reach a level and all of the hand bearing dolphins simply decide to go back in the sea? To hide until we are knowledgeable enough to meet with them?

Admittedly there are a few creature out there that exhibit possible traits of ongoing evolution, there are far too few to make the case. However if we are all a product of that same evolution, where are all of the other adaptations and half adaptations? How is it that the universe knew just when to stop creatures crawling from the ocean onto the land? When did the universe know to stop producing the dinosaurs? Yes they went extinct, but if they were truly a product of evolution, why did they just not evolve again?
Why do we not find fish crawling out on the land all over the place? I mean what happened to throw the switch and say enough, this is where we stop the active evolution?

Semper

Originally posted by semperfortis
It is simple only in an explanation that it is simple. No it is far more complex when one looks around and there are no half man, half apes, no Dolphins with fingers, no true evidence of ongoing evolution.

Incorrect, Dolphins actually have finger bones within their fins.

The thing about evolution is that it is not that fast. Basically whats happening is over time cells and dna are mutating and adapting to the enviroment. For example, your body begins to become less suseptible to the bitter cold. This is carried on in your dna, and when you breed, your child is inherited with your improved genes. Subconsciously at the same time, we look for the best mates, through sexual desire, to find the best genes.

Evolution takes millions of years, and as such you dont necessarily see "half man, half ape" things walking around. Theyre slow evolutionary steps. As for evidence, well, look at the platipus, I guess, or again, the dolphins having fingerbones within theyre fins. These are beginning steps of evolution which you can only see in the past-tense, not looking forward. We can look at the bones and the fossils and see the evolutionary chain, we cant predict it.

Why do we not find fish crawling out on the land all over the place? I mean what happened to throw the switch and say enough, this is where we stop the active evolution?

It doesnt work like that. If the mutations lead to going on land, those will, but other creatures will stay in water. If you want evidence of evolution in the water, look at the deep sea. Creatures have actually EVOLVED there to have adaptable chemical lighting to actually light up the lightless lands.

You obviously have a poor understanding of the real concepts of evolution, its something you should really look into before trying to argue against it. Being ignorant of the evidence does not mean the evidence does not exist, just not in the context your looking for.

Originally posted by semperfortis
Admittedly there are a few creature out there that exhibit possible traits of ongoing evolution, there are far too few to make the case. However if we are all a product of that same evolution, where are all of the other adaptations and half adaptations?

I think you're looking for too much. Evolution doesn't mean that a creature previously lacking hands just spontaneously grows them. It's far more subtle than that.

How is it that the universe knew just when to stop creatures crawling from the ocean onto the land? When did the universe know to stop producing the dinosaurs? Yes they went extinct, but if they were truly a product of evolution, why did they just not evolve again?

The only thing the universe had to do with the extinction of the dinosaurs was the meteor it threw at them 65 million years ago. Why did they simply not re-evolve? Because during the die-off, mammals were better equipped to survive the resulting harsh climates due to their hair-covered bodies and warm blood. This gave them the edge they needed to rule the world in the space the dinosaurs left behind. Once mammals became the dominant animal type, reptiles could not fill that space again as they were inferior creatures.

Why do we not find fish crawling out on the land all over the place? I mean what happened to throw the switch and say enough, this is where we stop the active evolution?
Semper

There are fish who can leave the water. The Northern Snakehead can leave water for several days and crawl across the ground to find new habitat.

Well perhaps I am ignorant, I have been accused of worse. yet it is funny how hundreds of REAL scholars seem to agree with me. I guess they are ignorant as well. Oh well.

See, the problem I have is the THEORY of evolution and how all of you proclaim the FACTS, when even your own academician's state it is the Theory, not the fact. So if Evolution is a theory and Creation is a Theory and Alien Seeding is a Theory, why are you spending all of your time here telling me I am not educated on the facts? When it is obvious by your own admissions that the definition of a theory must escape you, or you choose to ignore that definition.

Being as all of our options to discuss here are theories, does it not do us an injustice to fail to examine all possibilities with as open a mind as possible? Or should we just shut out all other hypotheses and just say "yes sir" when anyone comes on here and advises us that we are not knowledgeable about the topic?

My path to enlightenment is paved with an open mind and the ability to see all sides of an argument without summarily dismissing one side or the other because I may find it distasteful. As quoted in Sherlock Holmes, "When all that is impossible has been eliminated, what ever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." I accept this as an investigative model and it has served me well. Yet in order to utilize this to its potential, one must investigate all possibilities.

However, as is revealed by the previous posting, some would have us dismiss any alternative and accept their beliefs as a matter of fact. How is that any different than the religious fanatics? Is their belief any different from yours? I am sure that you think so, yet the FACTS, do not prove you correct.

As far as Dolphin finger bones and fish crawling across the land. I stated earlier that there is evidence of evolution, though it is scant and varied. I can also show you "evidence" of what the religious sect would call miracles. That will not make me believe in them, yet they can state them as fact as well and show that they are very well documented. Just go ask the Catholic Church. Or do you find them uneducated on the subject as well?

This thread was written to encourage active debate on a touchy subject, not to have members question other members intellect or knowledge of the subject. Your individual knowledge base may possibly be greater than someone else's or less. A belief in the Theory of Evolution and inability to discuss alternatives does not go very far in inspiring confidence in an ability to debate on any intellectual level.

Why is it that when we are faced with a topic that encompass's religion, we can not seem to get around our personalities long enough to engage each other in a discussion? Religion does not, to me, cause an emotional response, or cause me to become offensive when someone mentions it.

Semper

Originally posted by semperfortis
Well perhaps I am ignorant, I have been accused of worse. yet it is funny how hundreds of REAL scholars seem to agree with me. I guess they are ignorant as well. Oh well.

What makes a scholar "real" or fake? I'm sure theres plenty of opposing viewpoints out there.

See, the problem I have is the THEORY of evolution and how all of you proclaim the FACTS, when even your own academician's state it is the Theory, not the fact. So if Evolution is a theory and Creation is a Theory and Alien Seeding is a Theory, why are you spending all of your time here telling me I am not educated on the facts? When it is obvious by your own admissions that the definition of a theory must escape you, or you choose to ignore that definition.

Theyre all theories, but the difference between the theory of evolution and the theories of creation or alien seeding or whatever is that evolution is a scientific theory. That means its under the scrutiny of scientific testing, changing, and evidence to support or reject its theory. Creation and alien seeding fall under the category of mythological theory. That means that given a divine or extra-terrestrial intervention, there would be no possible way to proove for it to occur, other then the current tactics that creationists do, which is to simply discount evolution and call it impossible.

So why evolution is not factual (in a factual context being 100% unchanging fact) really, what is? Everything is subject to change. What is there is the fruits of the scientific evaluation of the theory of Evolution, through research we've been growing pile of evidence which supports the theory. Ofcourse, the other theories, having no proof to substantiate such claims, bears no such evidence.

Being as all of our options to discuss here are theories, does it not do us an injustice to fail to examine all possibilities with as open a mind as possible? Or should we just shut out all other hypotheses and just say "yes sir" when anyone comes on here and advises us that we are not knowledgeable about the topic?

Theres a difference between an open mind and ignorance. Open mindedness is you acknowledge the possibility, and are not one to instantly discount, but at the same time is not willing to instantly accept the claim. Ignorance would be ofcourse discounting all possibly sides of a matter, and only acknowledging one. Or ofcourse, instantly excepting something without gaining a knowledge of it first.

I myself fall into the branch of an Open Minded Skeptic. I am open to the possibility of alien creation, its a subject thats intrigued me greatly, but I will not willingly fall into believing it without proof or a solid backing to such a claim.

My path to enlightenment is paved with an open mind and the ability to see all sides of an argument without summarily dismissing one side or the other because I may find it distasteful. As quoted in Sherlock Holmes, "When all that is impossible has been eliminated, what ever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." I accept this as an investigative model and it has served me well. Yet in order to utilize this to its potential, one must investigate all possibilities.

You investigate the possibilities, but dismiss others without having a knowledge of it first, thats NOT being open minded.

However, as is revealed by the previous posting, some would have us dismiss any alternative and accept their beliefs as a matter of fact. How is that any different than the religious fanatics? Is their belief any different from yours? I am sure that you think so, yet the FACTS, do not prove you correct.

Ofcourse, but one thing that differenciates scientists from religious fanatics is that science can change, and science uses a backing of evidence collected to substantiate your claim. Infact the field of science is not how you invision it, if anything, the religious fanatics are those that follow what you propose. Things like aliens creating humanity. No supporting evidence, no real evidence at all. Just blind faith because to you or other proponents of it it seems as though its the "Only way"

Basically with the hunch I get from you, If I just said that the world is infact inside a Giant Swedish man named Brennan's Anus, then we should acknowledge it, if not, even believe it. There needs to be some backing to make a claim.

Wait now...

So your saying that there has been no scientific inspection in religion?

And reread my post, I never said that everything should be accepted, what you are saying I said is just plain silly.

I said all should be examined. Nothing about accepting it????

Originally posted by semperfortis
Wait now...

So your saying that there has been no scientific inspection in religion?

Not that theres no scientific inspection in religion (Theres plenty of "biblical scholars" and such) but theres no possible way to proove it. Theres no way to obtain evidence.

And you can prove evolution?

Man why are you not a millionaire?


Face it, nothing has been examined more than religion, and the historical references in religious manuscripts. Never proven, never will be, but neither will evolution, which is my point exactly. Neither one is more valid than the other. Both are based on a belief system founded in our social/economic upbringing and other external factors.

Some of the most Intelligent people in the world have been/are religous. I do not rank myself there at all, yet like to think I can follow their guidance as well as following the evolutionists. I refuse to restrict myself to one segment of the debate as it were, and there by restricting myself to one view-point.

That is what I was trying to convey, that the very act of dismissal, restricts one to a single side and that can never be conducive to a growing intellect.

Your belief in evolution does not in anyway make it true. Anothers belief in a grand design, again, does not make it true. yet if I dismiss either one off hand, what am I missing? There is no way to know, because out of ignorance or some preconceived stigma in the intellectual community, I ignored one side or the other.

So to truly be able to evaluate which theory fits into our own little sphere of acceptance, we must look at both as equally significant and equally mystifying. I have read the Bible, Origin of Species and the Quran, I have sought out religious and evolutionist seminars and listened intently. regardless of what you may surmise, I am no intellectual slouch, and I still have not completely formed an opinion. Other that those that dismiss religion outright, are missing the ability to truly formulate a definitive opinion.

Okay, I think it's time to back the truck up just a tiny bit.

Firstly, you've fallen into the nasty semantics trap involving the word "Theory". We're not talking about "t" theory, we're talking about "T" Theory. A Scientific Theory, such as those of Evolution, Plate Tectonics, Gravity, etc, are collections of observed facts which together create a bigger picture which we can use to measure and predict natural phenomena. This means everything in them, every equation, postulation, and recommendation, is to the best of our knowledge absolute fact.

The issue here is that the word theory has two meanings, which happen to be almost polar opposites. Because of this, I can't begin to convey how many times I've had to correct someone's misunderstandings about the word. There is the classic meaning which we all seem to know: That a theory is just a best guess. This is true. However, there is the word's alternate meaning, which is as I have described above. Don't believe me? Check for yourself here and here.

Face it, nothing has been examined more than religion, and the historical references in religious manuscripts. Never proven, never will be, but neither will evolution, which is my point exactly. Neither one is more valid than the other. Both are based on a belief system founded in our social/economic upbringing and other external factors.

On this point I beg to differ. I seriously beg to differ. The Theory of Evolution is far more valid than any Sacred Book any religion has ever produced, due to the fact that it is comprised entirely of testable (perhaps not conveniently so), logical postulations. The acres of evidence provided by it, and the resultant conclusions that are drawn from it, are far more reasonable than any current creation myth. As far as our species knows, the ToE is the most airtight set of ideas we have at our disposal to let us examine our deep past and possible origins.

The ToE is not based on any belief system, it is based on hard evidence. Rock hard and filled with fossils, available for anyone to inspect for themselves. What religion can say the same?

Postulation : A declaration of something self-evident; something that can be assumed as the basis for argument

Conclusion : A position or opinion or judgment reached after consideration : Or : An intuitive assumption

Yea, I have a dictionary too.

Ok, well give me a day or so, that gives me time to email all of the Christian, Muslim and Buddist scholars, the Theologians and other learned men, and tell them they are absolutely wrong.

How can a closed mind learn?

Originally posted by semperfortis
Postulation : A declaration of something self-evident; something that can be assumed as the basis for argument

Conclusion : A position or opinion or judgment reached after consideration : Or : An intuitive assumption

Yea, I have a dictionary too.

Ok, well give me a day or so, that gives me time to email all of the Christian, Muslim and Buddist scholars, the Theologians and other learned men, and tell them they are absolutely wrong.

How can a closed mind learn?

It seems like all your doing now semper is making pot shots at us and insults.

Lets get back to the issues, origin of life. This debate and bickering amongst ourselves has become a battle of symantics, not a fight worth the the breath of my lungs, or even the motion of my fingers to type.

I think the origin of life is something unknowable. We will never truly know how or why we were created. We have an idea, but as you've said before, its not necessarily based on hard fact. And as I've said, what we consider factual is usually only because its unopposed.

As a Buddhist, we're taught a not worry so much about the creation of the universe or the afterlife. These are what were called the unknowables, and will only waste our time on earth with arguements.

Oh and btw, for the record, Buddhist scholars agree with the theory of Evolution currently.

I thought that they believed in reincarnation.

I have little or no experience in that particular religion, sorry.

And I had no intention of insulting anyone. I never thought that being a Smarta&^ qualified me as insulting anyone.

I actually took the implication that somehow I was unqualified to discuss this, or not knowledgeable as an insult, but that is just semantic as you described.

I will continue to investigate with an open mind and explore al of the possibilities. For to me it is all about the accumulation of knowledge, not the acceptance of a belief.

Semper

Originally posted by semperfortis
I thought that they believed in reincarnation.

I have little or no experience in that particular religion, sorry.

We do, but that doesnt relate to the creation of the universe or the afterlife. We believe that we have to seperate ourselves and evolve out soul to break the chain of reincarnation. WHats after that, we dont know.

But currently Buddhisms stand by evolution.

And I had no intention of insulting anyone. I never thought that being a Smarta&^ qualified me as insulting anyone.

Being "smart" wasnt how you were insulting people. You were attacking us by calling us closed minded because we didnt agree with your claims.

I actually took the implication that somehow I was unqualified to discuss this, or not knowledgeable as an insult, but that is just semantic as you described.

Its wasnt ment as an insult. I was telling you that before you dicuss the subject of evolution, you should read into it more, because you seemed to not have a strong grasp on the subject, which you should have, before you try to argue against it.

I will continue to investigate with an open mind and explore al of the possibilities. For to me it is all about the accumulation of knowledge, not the acceptance of a belief.
Semper

With all the luck to you. But remember, as I said, theres a fine line between open mind and blind open mindedness, I.e. ignorance.

Remember to research all sides of everything, and stay impartial.

Originally posted by semperfortis
Postulation : A declaration of something self-evident; something that can be assumed as the basis for argument

Conclusion : A position or opinion or judgment reached after consideration : Or : An intuitive assumption

Yea, I have a dictionary too.

Well then, thanks for giving definitions for words I've used correctly...though I'm unsure of your point in doing so.

Ok, well give me a day or so, that gives me time to email all of the Christian, Muslim and Buddist scholars, the Theologians and other learned men, and tell them they are absolutely wrong.

Defensively redirect the point being discussed some more. It doesn't help your position.

How can a closed mind learn?

You should ask yourself that very question. It seems to me you started this thread with your mind made up, and are now choosing to judge others that are doing the same. Lets take a look:

God or Aliens, someone orchestrated life on this planet

I have heard the arguments; you have heard the arguments and “The Winner Is?” No one, nothing but theory and supposition all based on the same societal and familial influences that give us prejudice, favorite foods and vacation spots. Where did life come from?

Yet when combining everything that must have been developed, Sight, Hearing, Touch, Smell, etc. Along with al of the bodily functions necessary just to survive, does it not beg for evidence of outside influence?

It is simple only in an explanation that it is simple. No it is far more complex when one looks around and there are no half man, half apes, no Dolphins with fingers, no true evidence of ongoing evolution.

Well perhaps I am ignorant, I have been accused of worse. yet it is funny how hundreds of REAL scholars seem to agree with me. I guess they are ignorant as well. Oh well.

Et cetera. Crowned by this gem:

This thread was written to encourage active debate on a touchy subject, not to have members question other members intellect or knowledge of the subject.

If we're not supposed to be questioning each other, then perhaps you had best lead by example.